|
|
| In this section you can
consult the legal work attempted by Minca
during year 2001
in the defense of the rigths of the mining contract for the development in Las Cristinas 4,5,6 and 7. |
| December 17 |
MINCA address an official statement to the MEM requesting it is granted him an audience so that this Ministry serves as mediator to try to pay the differences arisen between the CVG and MINCA.
|
| December 4 |
VANNESSA DE VENEZUELA, C.A. (formerly known as Placer Dome de Venezuela, C.A.) submitted an accusation before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic since CVG confiscated some vehicles owned by VANNESSA at the time of the forceful taking of Las Cristinas. |
| November 26 |
MINCA offered a press conference in order to clarify before the mass media the particulars on the negotiation made by VANNESSA VENTURES by which it entered into the Las Cristinas Project, and to point out the infringements of CVG in its anxiety to terminate the Mining Agreement and to forcefully take Las Cristinas. |
| November 21 |
The Basic Industry Subcommission of the Comptroller's Commission recommended that the Ministry of Energy and Mines should, upon resuming its rights over Las Cristinas 4, 5, 6 and 7, grant the concessions to CVG. |
| November 16 |
CVG proceeded to take the physical areas of Las Cristinas in a forceful manner. Such step was taken by CVG without the presence of a Mines Attorney and under no procedure whatsoever.
A team of CVG, the National Guard, legal advisors and the Judge of the Municipality of Tumeremo went to the place, and this latter was there only in order to write a minute about the execution of the action, according to a request made by CVG.
The representatives of Minera Las Cristinas, C.A. (MINCA) were prohibited to express their opposition in the act, and to give the reason for such opposition because CVG stated that "...that was its action and MINCA was not entitled to intervene…" All of the members of MINCA's personnel were required to leave the facilities, and a team designated by CVG remained there, and they would then proceed to make an inspection. |
| November 16 |
MINCA files a Constitutional induction to request protection to its rights as concessionaire on the copper concession in Las Critinas |
| November 15 |
MINCA sent a new letter to CVG explaining the reasons in law and in equity for which a forceful taking was not according to law, since such action would infringe constitutional, contractual and legal rights of MINCA, and in addition it would be an usurpation of duties, because CVG has no legal power to take mining areas, since such power was revoked in 1996. |
| November 9 |
MINCA informed the Ministry of Energy and Mines of CVG's intention to unilaterally terminate the Agreement and to take the camp, without taking consideration of legal and contractual procedures, specifically the arbitration procedure, and without due respect for MINCA's capacity as holder of a concession regarding the Copper Concessions in the same area. MINCA requested the intervention of the Ministry to stop the steps to be taken by CVG. |
| November 7 |
MINCA sent a reply to CVG, explaining the reasons for which the agreement could not be terminated unilaterally, and the impossibility for MINCA to deliver the areas, because there was no default of the agreement and MINCA was also holder of the copper concessions of such areas. |
| November 6 |
CVG notified its decision to "Unilaterally" terminate the Agreement, and it gave a term of 7 calendar days for MINCA to deliver the mine and all of the goods attached to it. |
| October 30 |
Deputy Luis Velázquez Alvaray submitted information to the Basic Industry Subcommission of the Comptroller’s Commission. |
| October 19 |
MINCA addressed Gral. Francisco Rangel Gómez, CVG, the reports of the activities carried out during the following semester:
- From January 1 2001 at June 30 2001
- From July 1 of 2000 at December 31 2000
- From January 1 2000 at June 30 2000
- From July 1 of 1999 at December 31 1999 |
| October 9 |
MINCA deemed it necessary to submit a petition for constitutional guarantee of its rights in order to secure the execution of the procedures set forth in the Mining Agreement, so that the harassing and negative declarations both about the Project, and about MINCA, and the transaction made by VANNESSA related to the acquisition of an interest in Placer Dome de Venezuela would cease. However, it was only after one (1) month had elapsed, and after the decision by CVG to unilaterally terminate the Agreement, that the Court made a decision holding the petition unacceptable, since it considered that the right of defense had not been impaired because CVG, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, had given a term of 90 days to correct the default, and if the parties could not reach to an agreement, they could submit the matter to arbitration. |
| September 6 |
MINCA address communication to the MEM, requesting an audience to discuss those peculiar of the situation of Las Cristinas and to present the program of reactivación of the Project. |
| August 23 |
MINCA sent a reply to the letter from CVG, pointing out that according to the terms of the Agreement, there was no breach whatsoever. At that time, MINCA's President, Mr. Erich Rauguth asked for a meeting with CVG's President in order to clarify any discrepancies.
In addition, MINCA has sent a few letters requesting a meeting with CVG, but no reply has been received. In such letters, MINCA expressed its intent to discuss the matter, and the significance of an understanding between the parties. |
| August 17 |
Vannessa, in its capacity as shareholder in MINCA, summoned a General Special Meeting of Shareholders which main purpose was to appoint the new members of the Board of Directors. At such meeting, the representative of CVG, Mr. John Armando Madero (at the same time a Director of MINCA) expressed that CVG did not recognize Vannessa as main shareholder, since it did not recognize the operation made between Placer Dome and Vannessa. |
| August 10 |
Placer Dome addresses communication to CVG, responding to the fraud accusation. |
| August 26, 200 |
Press Articles published on the national press, in which supposedly CVG's President accuses from fraud to Placer Dome. |
| August 7 |
Press Articles published on the national press, in which supposedlyCVG’s President accuses Placer Dome of doing fraud. |
| August 6 |
CVG address communication to MINCA notifying some nonfulfillments and possible rescission of the Contract. |
| July 26 |
Change of the company's name from Placer Dome to VANNESSA DE VENEZUELA, C.A. |
| July 25 |
Placer Dome addresses communication to CVG responding CVG communication dated July 20, 2001. |
| July 20 |
Meeting taken place among CVG's President in the offices of the CVG, in Puerto Ordaz, and José Tomas Letelier, Roberto Mendoza and José Antonio Pinedo attend the meeting to explain the reaches of the operation with Vannessa. |
| July 20 |
CVG's President address communication to William Hayes in relation of the meeting with representatives of MINCA and Placer Dome de Venezuela informing that the CVG ignores and rejects the agreement of the sale of the shares to Vannessa Ventures Ltd. and requests meeting among representatives of Placer Dome de Venezuela and CVG. |
| July 16 |
Presidency of CVG addresses communication to William Hayes ratifying their rejection to the agreement with Vannessa Ventures Ltd. and summons to a meeting to solve the differences, on July 20 at 10:00 o'clock in the offices of CVG in Puerto Ordaz. William Hayes address communication to CVG's President confirming attendance to the meeting. |
| July 16 |
MINCA's President, addresses communication to MINCA Board of Directory, by request of IHC. Corp., subsidiary of Vannessa Ventures Ltd., their decision of restarting immediately, subject to the approval of MINCA Board of Directors, the construction of the Project Las Cristinas. |
| July 16 |
Placer Dome addresses communication to CVG's President in relation of the communication dated 25 April, ratifying the agreement with Vannessa Ventures Ltd., and requests a meeting to the possible brevity, to explain the reaches of this agreement. |
| July 16 |
Armando John Madero, Franqui Patines, Jacinto Añez, Ramiro Molina, address communication to MINCA in relation to the of MINCA Board of Directors Meeting, informing that they won't attend the Meeting as CVG ignores and rejects the agreement of the sale of the shares of Placer Dome. |
| July 14 |
CVG's President addresses communication to Placer Dome de Venezuela, Board of Director, informing that CVG ignores and rejects the agreement of the sale of the shares to Vannessa Ventures, Ltd, and requests a meeting among representatives of Placer Dome de Venezuela and CVG. |
| July 13 |
Placer Dome Inc. sells their shares in Placer Dome de Venezuela, C.A. to Vannessa Ventures, Ltd. |
| July 12 |
General Francisco Rangel Gómez declares to the press that the Project Las Cristinas goes but without Placer Dome. |
| June 14 |
Placer Dome addresses communication to the CVG's President manifesting that in spite of having requested a meeting in the letter of June 07 2001, regrettably news of the CVG have not been received. Also informs him that it maintains their interest in knowing which the posture of the CVG is with regard to the meeting of April 17 2001, followed by the communications of April 25 and May 14 2001. Also request that is convenient for the two partners to achieve an opportune decision. |
| June 7 |
Placer Dome requests from CVG an answer concerning the submitted proposal. |
| May 18 |
MINCA Board of Directors, with approval of CVG, decides to to finish the contract with the Banking of Investment, Scotia Capital. |
| May 14 |
CVG addresses his answer to Placer Dome offer, informing that an institutional team would be created to evaluate it. |
| May 10 |
Scotia Capital present its final report to MINCA for the lack of Response of CVG. |
| April 27 |
A copy of this presentation is sent to: Franqui Patines, Ramiro Molina, David Pyper (Scotia Capital). |
| April 25 |
Placer Dome presents a formal offer to the CVG, in order to acquire MINCA. |
| April 17 |
Mr. William Hayes meets with the Vice-Minister of MEM, Dra. Elsa Amorer at 09:30 o'clock a.m. |
| April 17 |
Representatives of Placer Dome meets with CVG and offers its part in Las Cristinas. |
| April 2 |
José A. Pinedo addresses communication to CVG's President Informing him that William Hayes cannot travel to Caracas on April 18 and requests to consider a meeting for April 17, 2001. |
| April 2 |
William Hayes addresses a communication to the Ministry of MEM, Dr. Alvaro Silva Calderón, requesting a meeting with him and with the Vice-Minister, Dra. Elsa Amorer, to inform the proposals in relation to the expiration on July 15 of the extension of the suspension of the Project. |
| March 26 |
William Hayes addresses a communication to CVG's President where he complains that it was no possible to CVG to Confirm the meeting for the 22 neither for March 29, he suggests him to meet on April 18, 2001. |
| March 21 |
William Hayes addresses communication to CVG's President, Confirming the phone communication with Paula Pinheiro that the meeting will be held on March 29 in Caracas. |
| March 13 |
Minca's President addresses communication to CVG, requesting confirmation of date of the meeting requested by William Hayes on March 01, 2001. |
| March 1 |
William Hayes requests meeting to CVG's President. |
| February 9 |
William Hayes, Placer Dome Inc's representative, responds to Scotia Capital letter of February 1, 2001. |
| February 7 |
Minca's President confirms Scotia Capital the proposal presented in Its communication of February 1, 2001. |
| February 2 |
Scotia Capital addresses communication to the CVG's President requesting meeting and confirmation of the process. |
| January 10 |
Minca's President addresses communication to CVG's President requesting audience for all the involved parts, to reach some proposal for the Project. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
